BGP Path Marking
draft-bgp-path-marking-00
| Document | Type |
Expired Internet-Draft
(individual)
Expired & archived
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Authors | Camilo Cardona , Pierre Francois , Saikat Ray , Keyur Patel , Paolo Lucente , Prodosh Mohapatra | ||
| Last updated | 2014-01-11 (Latest revision 2013-07-10) | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Intended RFC status | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | Expired | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
This Internet-Draft is no longer active. A copy of the expired Internet-Draft is available in these formats:
Abstract
The potential advertisement of non-best paths by a BGP speaker supporting the add-path or the best-external extensions makes it difficult for other BGP speakers to identify the paths that have been selected as best by those who advertise them. This information is required for proper operation of some applications. Towards that end, this document proposes marking the paths using extended communities that encode the path type.
Authors
Camilo Cardona
Pierre Francois
Saikat Ray
Keyur Patel
Paolo Lucente
Prodosh Mohapatra
(Note: The e-mail addresses provided for the authors of this Internet-Draft may no longer be valid.)